Welcome to the best KC Chiefs site on the internet. You can view any post as a visitor, but you are required to register before you can post. Click the register link above, it only takes 30 seconds to start chatting with Chiefs fans from all over the world! Enjoy your stay!

The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

0

Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.

Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.

Like I said before, if the party wants a bill to become law, changed or completely remove, they have to get enough in Congress that will support them. Now, worldwide, the tea party is seen as extremist. I miss the good old GOP, Reagan style, not this.

Frankly I could care less how the rest of the world sees the Tea Party. It is not "extremist" to actually listen to your constituency and stand on principle (for a change), to insist that there by equal treatment under the law and make big business and congress subject to the same set of circumstances everyone else is or give everyone else the same exemptions that Obama gave congress.

I am happy they listen to their constituency, it is their job. But to do what they did was not how the Founding Fathers wanted our government to govern. These delays that Obama gave to the businesses, for one year, do we know why?

Also with many Americans "frankly" not caring how the world sees them, I would be surprise if the Euro isn't the world currency here soon and that many countries remove themselves from the US market dependency.

I am happy they listen to their constituency, it is their job. But to do what they did was not how the Founding Fathers wanted our government to govern.

Tell that to Obama and the Democrats, they're the ones that refused to come to the bargaining table. And what exactly did "they" do? Shut down the government? I'm sick of that narrative as well, as if Obama and the Democrats had no part in that.

Originally Posted by mejohnm

These delays that Obama gave to the businesses, for one year, do we know why?

Also with many Americans "frankly" not caring how the world sees them, I would be surprise if the Euro isn't the world currency here soon and that many countries remove themselves from the US market dependency.

I can't help that the world gets sucked into the mainstream, left wing, liberal media. I'm tired of the elitist, establishment, RINO way of go along to get along, business as usual, sell our children's future down the river way of governing that the Republican Party has become. I'm a Conservative and will no longer identify myself with the Republican Party until it rids itself of the RINOs. While we're on the subject of how our Founding Fathers governed, I'm pretty sure they were viewed by the European community as extremist.

Well as Republicans cave under the pressure of falling poll numbers thier tendency to go into self political preservation mode kicked in, having secured only to provisions fought for and that being: income verrification for Obamacare subsidies and the sequester cuts remain in place. So in essense Obama gets 100% of everything he wanted so that there will be nothing left to negotiate.

Yep. Income verification is not really a concession. It was in the original ACA before Obama unconstitutionally delayed it a year. That was done because businesses were supposed to report to the IRS who does and does not have insurance and what is covered, but there is no reporting system in place, yet, and businesses have been given a one year delay on their mandate to cover employees (also unconstitutionally), but individuals are required to be covered anyway. So I don't know how they are going to verify eligibility. Just look at your gross income reported on your 1040 form, I guess. So instead of getting a delay for any part of Obamacare, they just got democrats to agree to start that provision sooner than it would have if Obama had his way.

The sequester cuts have to remain in effect by law, because we still don't have a budget. So really, we got NOTHiNG out of the partial shutdown, and at the end of the year we will be right back where we were a few days ago. Only by then millions of people will have signed up for the exchanges (if they ever get the website fixed) and it will be that much harder to make any changes to the ACA.

Yep. Income verification is not really a concession. It was in the original ACA before Obama unconstitutionally delayed it a year. That was done because businesses were supposed to report to the IRS who does and does not have insurance and what is covered, but there is no reporting system in place, yet, and businesses have been given a one year delay on their mandate to cover employees (also unconstitutionally), but individuals are required to be covered anyway. So I don't know how they are going to verify eligibility. Just look at your gross income reported on your 1040 form, I guess. So instead of getting a delay for any part of Obamacare, they just got democrats to agree to start that provision sooner than it would have if Obama had his way.

The sequester cuts have to remain in effect by law, because we still don't have a budget. So really, we got NOTHiNG out of the partial shutdown, and at the end of the year we will be right back where we were a few days ago. Only by then millions of people will have signed up for the exchanges (if they ever get the website fixed) and it will be that much harder to make any changes to the ACA.

Yup, that is why Ted Cruz and Mike Lee fought to try and de-fund/delay Obamacre because once an entitlement program goes into full effect it is virtually impossible to repeal it.

Seems last night would be the answer, even if the budget is only for a couple of months.

Except they didn't pass a budget. They just extended current funding levels for another 3 months and raised the debt ceiling high enough to cover all our bills for a few months while the national debt continues to skyrocket. We have had funding bills for things like Agriculture and transportation, but we haven't had a full omnibus budget since Obama took office. He is required to submit a budget every year but has only submitted one budget since he took office and that was so extreme not even a single Democrat voted for it!

It is because of the fact that we can't pass a budget that sequestration started almost a year ago. Obama thought that if Congress was threatened with across the board cuts (including military) it would force Republicans and Democrats to compromise and finally pass a budget. It didn't.

Actually I hope they don't pass a budget, because it will force another round of spending cuts beginning in January 2014, due to sequestration. That seems to be the only way you can get Congress to cut spending on anything. Since sequestration kicked in the deficit has been cut in half and we have gotten along fine with the cuts. So while we are still spending more than we take in, it has at least slowed down the rate of growth in the National Debt a little bit.

Originally Posted by mejohnm

Like I said before, if the party wants a bill to become law, changed or completely remove, they have to get enough in Congress that will support them. Now, worldwide, the tea party is seen as extremist. I miss the good old GOP, Reagan style, not this.

I don't think it is "extreme" to do what your district elected you to do. I don't think it is "extreme" to take a moral stand on principle. Millions of Americans are already being hurt by Obamacare, being forced to pay higher premiums for less coverage, losing plans that they liked and wanted to keep and no longer being able to see the same doctors they have had for many years, because they aren't included in the "bronze plan" or the "silver plan" and you can't afford the "gold plan."

Some say if Obamacare is so bad, just let it take effect and people will vote out the guys who support it. That may be true but the next mid-term elections are over a year away and by then much of the damage will have already been done. People will lose their jobs or have their hours cut. The higher costs they will have to pay for coverage will mean they have less money to buy stuff that people make and services that people provide. That will lead to even higher unemployment as businesses lay off employees due to the reduced demand for their products or services. It will send the economy back into a tailspin.

Real people will really be hurt by the ACA and it would be unethical for the politicians that campaigned to stop it to break their promises and not do what they can to try to stop it even if they don't have the numbers. Believe me, when the full pain of Obamacare is felt, voters will remember who supported it and who opposed it.

Originally Posted by mejohnm

I am happy they listen to their constituency, it is their job. But to do what they did was not how the Founding Fathers wanted our government to govern.

Yeah, our Founding Fathers made the mistake of expecting politicians to be reasonable and make sensible compromises. All of this could have been avoided if the Democrats hadn't gotten drunk with power when they won the White House, House and Senate in 2008. If they had worked with Republicans and crafted a bill that both parties could agree on in the first place, Republicans wouldn't be trying to stop it now. But Dems knew that they could put whatever they wanted in the ACA and Republicans didn't have the numbers to stop them, so they refused to listen to any GOP input. Two years later Republicans won back the House, in large part because of Obamacare, and now the two parties have to work together if they are going to get anything done. But Democrats would rather shut down the Government, deny cancer treatment to children, and put barricades and armed guards around the World War II memorial, than give even an inch. They even refused to repeal the medical supply tax that had overwhelming bipartisan support, because they put political victories above doing what is right for the American people.

Our Founding Fathers drafted a Constitution that made it very difficult for laws to get passed because they wanted small government. It was big government that led to them declaring our independence in the first place. They wanted to make sure that only laws that had support on both sides of the aisle would be passed. It was exactly situations like this that the envisioned when they wrote it.

Tell that to Obama and the Democrats, they're the ones that refused to come to the bargaining table. And what exactly did "they" do? Shut down the government? I'm sick of that narrative as well, as if Obama and the Democrats had no part in that.

Their constituents didn't want the ACA to go away so they voted not to repeal it. They were not the ones to say we didn't get what we wanted so we will hurt our own country by shutting down the government, or even in partial, or threatening other things.

This is how it works. We cannot get everything and if we do want something, then we have to spread the word around so the people who represent our wishes can get voted in and make them as laws. If not, then we have to hold on for the ride.
And no, the Founding Fathers were not seen as extremist, well, to Britain at the time, probably yea.

Maybe the ACA cannot be repealed, but it certainly can be changed if it is voted for it. It can even be repealed if there are enough votes for it. Example would be the 18th Amendment.

Their constituents didn't want the ACA to go away so they voted not to repeal it. They were not the ones to say we didn't get what we wanted so we will hurt our own country by shutting down the government, or even in partial, or threatening other things.

This is how it works. We cannot get everything and if we do want something, then we have to spread the word around so the people who represent our wishes can get voted in and make them as laws. If not, then we have to hold on for the ride.
And no, the Founding Fathers were not seen as extremist, well, to Britain at the time, probably yea.

Maybe the ACA cannot be repealed, but it certainly can be changed if it is voted for it. It can even be repealed if there are enough votes for it. Example would be the 18th Amendment.

...And yet they are not the ones considered extremist because of it. They (the Democrats) were willing to take the country into shutdown and into default, if necessary, to protect their pet program. See Roys post above, he explains it in detail.